Moderation Log February 28, 2025 7:56 AM Subscribe
The new site should have a moderation log from day one.
Here’s what I propose as a basic foundation.
Any posts or comments deleted by a mod should be recorded in a publicly accessible log. The log should be a link in the footer or another logical spot (front page of Wiki, etc). Entries would contain: a link to the deleted post or the post that had a comment deleted from it, who deleted it, what time/date, and why. The ‘why’ could be a simple dropdown like the flag list. (Inspired by this comment).
This would be automatic but the mods would have some kind of deliberate override switch* if they need to delete something without it appearing on the log.
That’s it for a start. Account wipes, timeouts, bans, etc., would not appear on this version. My aim here is to come up with the absolute minimum a log should contain.
*This would be used only in edge cases and there would still be some kind of internal “something was deleted here” record.
Here’s what I propose as a basic foundation.
Any posts or comments deleted by a mod should be recorded in a publicly accessible log. The log should be a link in the footer or another logical spot (front page of Wiki, etc). Entries would contain: a link to the deleted post or the post that had a comment deleted from it, who deleted it, what time/date, and why. The ‘why’ could be a simple dropdown like the flag list. (Inspired by this comment).
This would be automatic but the mods would have some kind of deliberate override switch* if they need to delete something without it appearing on the log.
That’s it for a start. Account wipes, timeouts, bans, etc., would not appear on this version. My aim here is to come up with the absolute minimum a log should contain.
*This would be used only in edge cases and there would still be some kind of internal “something was deleted here” record.
This will wendell.
posted by box at 8:21 AM on February 28 [5 favorites]
posted by box at 8:21 AM on February 28 [5 favorites]
the first version new site will be open for testing in the next days
Is it reasonable to assume that this means "within the month of March"
posted by ginger.beef at 8:29 AM on February 28 [7 favorites]
Is it reasonable to assume that this means "within the month of March"
posted by ginger.beef at 8:29 AM on February 28 [7 favorites]
I'm not sure I am clear on the steps here - is the new version of the site going to be pulling from a shared database or are they going to diverge right away?
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 8:29 AM on February 28 [3 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 8:29 AM on February 28 [3 favorites]
Completely out of the loop here: what new site?
posted by star gentle uterus at 8:32 AM on February 28 [4 favorites]
posted by star gentle uterus at 8:32 AM on February 28 [4 favorites]
Question for kirkaracha: How much dev time would it take to add a rudimentary page that simply documents each time a comment is deleted, and which mod deleted it?
posted by umber vowel at 8:34 AM on February 28
posted by umber vowel at 8:34 AM on February 28
Just adding a note so that it's clear that the new site will not have a moderation log from day one
Ok, close this post up then, what else is there to discuss?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:37 AM on February 28 [4 favorites]
Ok, close this post up then, what else is there to discuss?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:37 AM on February 28 [4 favorites]
Completely out of the loop here: what new site?
For whatever reason, they re-doing the site in Laravel. We don't have a fully elected perm board but hey.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:38 AM on February 28
For whatever reason, they re-doing the site in Laravel. We don't have a fully elected perm board but hey.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:38 AM on February 28
Completely out of the loop here: what new site?
The MetaFilter codebase is bring re-written from the ground up due to the site currently running on a creaking, decades old backend.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 8:38 AM on February 28 [1 favorite]
The MetaFilter codebase is bring re-written from the ground up due to the site currently running on a creaking, decades old backend.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 8:38 AM on February 28 [1 favorite]
first version new site will be open for testing in the next days and it will not be feature-complete.
can we then reframe this as "from day one of the official roll out" rather than "day one of testing" then? otherwise you response really feels like it's pre-emptively shutting down the actual thrust of the conversation, which is less "websites take time to build" and more "a moderation log should be a priority"
posted by Kybard at 9:08 AM on February 28 [20 favorites]
can we then reframe this as "from day one of the official roll out" rather than "day one of testing" then? otherwise you response really feels like it's pre-emptively shutting down the actual thrust of the conversation, which is less "websites take time to build" and more "a moderation log should be a priority"
posted by Kybard at 9:08 AM on February 28 [20 favorites]
For the sake of discussion, "day one" can be interpreted as "a reasonable timeframe after the new site is open for business".
posted by Diskeater at 9:13 AM on February 28 [12 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 9:13 AM on February 28 [12 favorites]
Just adding a note so that it's clear that the new site will not have a moderation log from day one. While I support the idea, the first version new site will be open for testing in the next days and it will not be feature-complete.
"Open for testing" isn't "day one", though, it's "day negative ninety".
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 9:24 AM on February 28 [21 favorites]
"Open for testing" isn't "day one", though, it's "day negative ninety".
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 9:24 AM on February 28 [21 favorites]
The MetaFilter codebase is bring re-written from the ground up due to the site currently running on a creaking, decades old backend.
As it happens, I also am currently running on a creaking, decades-old backend.
posted by Lemkin at 9:24 AM on February 28 [10 favorites]
As it happens, I also am currently running on a creaking, decades-old backend.
posted by Lemkin at 9:24 AM on February 28 [10 favorites]
Ok, close this post up then, what else is there to discuss?
but we haven't even begun to touch on one of the several digressions I intend to introduce
posted by ginger.beef at 9:35 AM on February 28 [11 favorites]
but we haven't even begun to touch on one of the several digressions I intend to introduce
posted by ginger.beef at 9:35 AM on February 28 [11 favorites]
"Open for testing" isn't "day one", though, it's "day negative ninety".
Yeah, this was the thrust of my question. Having a beta version of the site open for testing is really really different from "Day One". I would hope a live site working with the live database would have some kind of moderation tools, but if it's just testing data and gets wiped nightly or whatever, that's a totally different scenario.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 9:42 AM on February 28 [3 favorites]
Yeah, this was the thrust of my question. Having a beta version of the site open for testing is really really different from "Day One". I would hope a live site working with the live database would have some kind of moderation tools, but if it's just testing data and gets wiped nightly or whatever, that's a totally different scenario.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 9:42 AM on February 28 [3 favorites]
Mod note: Testing official mod comment in MeTa
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:50 AM on February 28 [2 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:50 AM on February 28 [2 favorites]
Unofficial mod comment in MeTa.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:50 AM on February 28 [2 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:50 AM on February 28 [2 favorites]
Gonna say for the hundredth time that mods have not been granted the authority to make sweeping pronouncements about how the site operates. They may hold the keys right now but they don't own the place.
posted by donnagirl at 9:52 AM on February 28 [10 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 9:52 AM on February 28 [10 favorites]
Brandon can you go play in an old closed thread instead of the most recent active one?
posted by donnagirl at 9:53 AM on February 28 [16 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 9:53 AM on February 28 [16 favorites]
Just testing, ignore all that.
BACK TO THE MOD LOG THING:
The lobster.rs mod log looks good, I support a full featured mod log in new site.
Question: does it have formal, built in way of disputing a removal or edit? I'm guessing MetaFilter would use the traditional means of sending emails or opening a separate MeTa for questioning a mod action.
But there's that new Mod Oversight Committee, so it's worth us thinking about what the dispute flow would be. Thoughts?
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:54 AM on February 28
BACK TO THE MOD LOG THING:
The lobster.rs mod log looks good, I support a full featured mod log in new site.
Question: does it have formal, built in way of disputing a removal or edit? I'm guessing MetaFilter would use the traditional means of sending emails or opening a separate MeTa for questioning a mod action.
But there's that new Mod Oversight Committee, so it's worth us thinking about what the dispute flow would be. Thoughts?
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:54 AM on February 28
They may hold the keys right now but they don't own the place.
Who's to say they won't be given that power?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:58 AM on February 28
Who's to say they won't be given that power?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:58 AM on February 28
But there's that new Mod Oversight Committee, so it's worth us thinking about what the dispute flow would be. Thoughts?
Just a reminder that as per my initial post, the MOC is meant to be a temporary initiative for now to understand needs better and contribute to the site's health. Better solutions should be developed that are more integrated to whatever the site direction becomes. (How's that for passive tense?)
Also, Kybard, who is leading an excellent process of user research, is investigating some of the questions of "how do people find out about the MOC" and once that research is done we'll roll committee feedback in and iterate a bit and come back with some requests and a process. We're also still working out some communications kinks.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:06 AM on February 28 [17 favorites]
Just a reminder that as per my initial post, the MOC is meant to be a temporary initiative for now to understand needs better and contribute to the site's health. Better solutions should be developed that are more integrated to whatever the site direction becomes. (How's that for passive tense?)
Also, Kybard, who is leading an excellent process of user research, is investigating some of the questions of "how do people find out about the MOC" and once that research is done we'll roll committee feedback in and iterate a bit and come back with some requests and a process. We're also still working out some communications kinks.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:06 AM on February 28 [17 favorites]
A log wouldn't replace MetaTalk, the MOC, or anything like that. I purposely proposed something barebones just to get something going.
This version of a log would automatically record when a comment or post is deleted by a moderator. That's it, that's all this would do.
posted by Diskeater at 10:08 AM on February 28 [7 favorites]
This version of a log would automatically record when a comment or post is deleted by a moderator. That's it, that's all this would do.
posted by Diskeater at 10:08 AM on February 28 [7 favorites]
Am I the only one that didn’t know that a mod comment without a box around it is an unofficial comment? I thought mods just occasionally forgot to turn that option on when they were commenting.
posted by Vatnesine at 10:12 AM on February 28 [4 favorites]
posted by Vatnesine at 10:12 AM on February 28 [4 favorites]
Brandon can you go play in an old closed thread instead of the most recent active one?
This seems needlessly hostile.
posted by Lemkin at 10:15 AM on February 28 [28 favorites]
This seems needlessly hostile.
posted by Lemkin at 10:15 AM on February 28 [28 favorites]
Thanks for clarifying warrior queen!
Diskeater, I don't think a mod log would replace anything, just tossing out the idea that a member may want to contest a mod action, and was wondering if people have ideas or examples of mod logs that make that easy to do.
We already have some tools for that (MeTa and email), just wondering if there are better or more common tools to do it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 10:16 AM on February 28
Diskeater, I don't think a mod log would replace anything, just tossing out the idea that a member may want to contest a mod action, and was wondering if people have ideas or examples of mod logs that make that easy to do.
We already have some tools for that (MeTa and email), just wondering if there are better or more common tools to do it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 10:16 AM on February 28
I am increasingly annoyed with the probably well-meaning but confusing and elliptical communication from the team (a team that just doesn't, I think, have the grounding in the basic tools and features of the admin side of the site) and so I'm going to say this out loud: the question is not, and has never been, "can there be a mod log". Deletions are tracked. Mod notes are collected. Flags exist somewhere (although I'm not sure how often that list is purged - I assume the answer is not "never" but I've never needed to go back all that far.) None of this exists in a single simple list right now (for example, deleted comments are tracked on the pages of the user that made them) and there are exceptions having to do with the special-case stuff around account wipes and user-privacy nuclear deletions, but the data's all there. The question is, and must be, "how should this data be made visible to the community." And that's a decision that really needs to be handled by the site management - presumably, eventually, the board and/or whatever ED is put in place, with whatever degree of community input they feel is appropriate.
This is why MetaTalk has, I think, outlived its function. There's simply no meaningful answer that anyone can give right now to questions like this that doesn't sound like evasion or willful misunderstanding.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 10:20 AM on February 28 [28 favorites]
This is why MetaTalk has, I think, outlived its function. There's simply no meaningful answer that anyone can give right now to questions like this that doesn't sound like evasion or willful misunderstanding.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 10:20 AM on February 28 [28 favorites]
This is why MetaTalk has, I think, outlived its function.
Amen. This sole purpose of this post seems to be "hey let's attack the mods again," complete with a directive to tell BB to go away and "play" somewhere else. WTH is wrong with you people.
posted by Melismata at 11:06 AM on February 28 [6 favorites]
Amen. This sole purpose of this post seems to be "hey let's attack the mods again," complete with a directive to tell BB to go away and "play" somewhere else. WTH is wrong with you people.
posted by Melismata at 11:06 AM on February 28 [6 favorites]
You're wrong.
posted by Diskeater at 11:12 AM on February 28 [8 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 11:12 AM on February 28 [8 favorites]
...
Memlismata, that's your takeaway? It's a request for a mod log in the new site. A very reasonable ask. What are you talking about?
And a mod dropping in to make weird tests of basic functionality that they should be utterly familiar with, in the middle of a brand-new thread, is just more of the utter carelessness that people are coming to expect, and which the mods are doing absolutely nothing to ameliorate.
posted by sagc at 11:13 AM on February 28 [22 favorites]
Memlismata, that's your takeaway? It's a request for a mod log in the new site. A very reasonable ask. What are you talking about?
And a mod dropping in to make weird tests of basic functionality that they should be utterly familiar with, in the middle of a brand-new thread, is just more of the utter carelessness that people are coming to expect, and which the mods are doing absolutely nothing to ameliorate.
posted by sagc at 11:13 AM on February 28 [22 favorites]
There's simply no meaningful answer that anyone can give right now to questions like this
No question was posed in the OP; there is nothing to answer. God forbid we discuss things on a discussion website.
posted by ohneat at 11:17 AM on February 28 [3 favorites]
No question was posed in the OP; there is nothing to answer. God forbid we discuss things on a discussion website.
posted by ohneat at 11:17 AM on February 28 [3 favorites]
Is it reasonable to assume that this means "within the month of March"
Next Monday, March 3.
is the new version of the site going to be pulling from a shared database or are they going to diverge right away?
A new database schema. The test site will use dummy data at first, then we'll migrate the data when the new site's ready to go.
How much dev time would it take to add a rudimentary page that simply documents each time a comment is deleted, and which mod deleted it?
Not long at all. A lot of the site is listing items from a database table. I haven't coded the mod comments yet because we've been focused on member features, but we will have a log.
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 11:18 AM on February 28 [15 favorites]
Next Monday, March 3.
is the new version of the site going to be pulling from a shared database or are they going to diverge right away?
A new database schema. The test site will use dummy data at first, then we'll migrate the data when the new site's ready to go.
How much dev time would it take to add a rudimentary page that simply documents each time a comment is deleted, and which mod deleted it?
Not long at all. A lot of the site is listing items from a database table. I haven't coded the mod comments yet because we've been focused on member features, but we will have a log.
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 11:18 AM on February 28 [15 favorites]
I look forward to our ipsum lorem metafilter!
posted by Vatnesine at 11:23 AM on February 28 [3 favorites]
posted by Vatnesine at 11:23 AM on February 28 [3 favorites]
A new database schema. The test site will use dummy data at first, then we'll migrate the data when the new site's ready to go.
Thanks! That was what I thought most likely but loup's comment made me nervous.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 11:32 AM on February 28 [3 favorites]
Thanks! That was what I thought most likely but loup's comment made me nervous.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 11:32 AM on February 28 [3 favorites]
I look forward to our ipsum lorem metafilter!fPersonally I'm rooting for Jeffsem Ipsum
posted by dbx at 11:57 AM on February 28 [1 favorite]
Ipsum lorem: metafilter
posted by Rumple at 12:18 PM on February 28 [3 favorites]
posted by Rumple at 12:18 PM on February 28 [3 favorites]
I didn’t see this thread when I posted this in the site update thread:
Friday Flashback: in the September 2024 site update, early access user testing of the new site was pushed back to September 29, 2024.
I do hope the testing site does launch soon, but I honestly think it will be a while before a new site actually launches for real.
posted by snofoam at 12:28 PM on February 28
Friday Flashback: in the September 2024 site update, early access user testing of the new site was pushed back to September 29, 2024.
I do hope the testing site does launch soon, but I honestly think it will be a while before a new site actually launches for real.
posted by snofoam at 12:28 PM on February 28
Awwwww, sorry to be "hostile" boys but there are so many threads where Brandon could do his little test of a feature he already uses, but he chose this one, one he didn't open. It's rude. I don't have to be polite to people cluelessly butting into an ongoing conversation with 100% unnecessary "tests" here anymore than I would in person. Plus, I wasn't hostile. I made a request, a reasonable one, and didn't use any swears, which is I think the way to go.
posted by donnagirl at 12:34 PM on February 28 [18 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 12:34 PM on February 28 [18 favorites]
Awwwww, sorry to be "hostile" boys but there are so many threads where Brandon could do his little test of a feature he already uses, but he chose this one, one he didn't open. It's rude. I don't have to be polite to people cluelessly butting into an ongoing conversation with 100% unnecessary "tests" here anymore than I would in person. Plus, I wasn't hostile. I made a request, a reasonable one, and didn't use any swears, which is I think the way to go.
I don't think you could seriously argue that Brandon's comment disrupted the flow of the dialogue in any real or significant way. It wasn't, like, the opening chapter of Moby Dick, and this is a thread with, what, 39 comments?
You don't like Brandon, which you've made clear on many occasions, and that's totally legit - I don't know you and I don't know Brandon and I don't know your history, but it seems to drip from your every interaction on this website.
And so, through the lens of your dislike, you saw an opportunity to needle him and you took it. It was absolutely hostile! And then when someone said something about it you trotted out that little "boys" line to try to inexplicably try to treat the fact that someone said something like it was some kind of sexism. Gross!
posted by kbanas at 12:59 PM on February 28 [12 favorites]
I don't think you could seriously argue that Brandon's comment disrupted the flow of the dialogue in any real or significant way. It wasn't, like, the opening chapter of Moby Dick, and this is a thread with, what, 39 comments?
You don't like Brandon, which you've made clear on many occasions, and that's totally legit - I don't know you and I don't know Brandon and I don't know your history, but it seems to drip from your every interaction on this website.
And so, through the lens of your dislike, you saw an opportunity to needle him and you took it. It was absolutely hostile! And then when someone said something about it you trotted out that little "boys" line to try to inexplicably try to treat the fact that someone said something like it was some kind of sexism. Gross!
posted by kbanas at 12:59 PM on February 28 [12 favorites]
can we keep to the discussion at hand
posted by glonous keming at 1:22 PM on February 28 [1 favorite]
posted by glonous keming at 1:22 PM on February 28 [1 favorite]
can we keep to the discussion at hand
Mod has already said there's no log. What's to discuss?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 1:26 PM on February 28
Mod has already said there's no log. What's to discuss?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 1:26 PM on February 28
Hey let's avoid the back and forth here by talking ever so briefly about why I made the comments.
Was testing a simple moderation log (SML) for the current site. Those comments intentionally put in this thread as a way of testing something in a live thread that was still open, but essentially out of the way, so to speak. A similar test took place on the front page.
No, there isn't much else to say at this point, other than it's is coming along and will be pretty simple. Thank you for your patience.
Now back to discussion about the new site's moderation log and what people would like to see in that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:26 PM on February 28 [2 favorites]
Was testing a simple moderation log (SML) for the current site. Those comments intentionally put in this thread as a way of testing something in a live thread that was still open, but essentially out of the way, so to speak. A similar test took place on the front page.
No, there isn't much else to say at this point, other than it's is coming along and will be pretty simple. Thank you for your patience.
Now back to discussion about the new site's moderation log and what people would like to see in that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:26 PM on February 28 [2 favorites]
It would have been cool if either your official or unofficial comment could have said some part of that. Just to smooth out the interactions and such. (Not hostile)
posted by donnagirl at 1:52 PM on February 28 [10 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 1:52 PM on February 28 [10 favorites]
donnagirl, that might be the nicest thing you've said to Brandon and I'm getting a little emotional here
Brandon: TINY HANDS, NOT A DICK JOKE
posted by ginger.beef at 7:05 PM on February 28 [3 favorites]
Brandon: TINY HANDS, NOT A DICK JOKE
posted by ginger.beef at 7:05 PM on February 28 [3 favorites]
"Any posts or comments deleted by a mod should be recorded in a publicly accessible log."
wouldn't this just be platforming deleted hate speech in a different spot?
posted by Jacqueline at 7:28 PM on February 28 [2 favorites]
wouldn't this just be platforming deleted hate speech in a different spot?
posted by Jacqueline at 7:28 PM on February 28 [2 favorites]
For now, couldn't a simple shared spreadsheet with 4 or 5 columns where mods enter the date/time, mod action and reason for that action be set up in 5 minutes? With no need for coding? Pretty sure this has been suggested multiple times, so forgive me if I've forgotten the reason why that couldn't be implemented in a day, but I'm all ears.
posted by catspajamas at 7:34 PM on February 28 [2 favorites]
posted by catspajamas at 7:34 PM on February 28 [2 favorites]
wouldn't this just be platforming deleted hate speech in a different spot?
If the lobste.rs mod log is being used as a model (as implied above), it records the fact that a comment was deleted in a particular thread by a particular user, but doesn’t display the comment itself.
I do think that’s a good model, fwiw. Along with logging account bans, deleted posts, and post edits without necessarily recording problematic content.
posted by learning from frequent failure at 7:35 PM on February 28 [4 favorites]
If the lobste.rs mod log is being used as a model (as implied above), it records the fact that a comment was deleted in a particular thread by a particular user, but doesn’t display the comment itself.
I do think that’s a good model, fwiw. Along with logging account bans, deleted posts, and post edits without necessarily recording problematic content.
posted by learning from frequent failure at 7:35 PM on February 28 [4 favorites]
or, or, someone who's comment gets deleted requests to not have that information openly available within the moderators log.
so, no moderator log now, moderator login future.
The question is, and must be, "how should this data be made visible to the community
posted by clavdivs at 7:43 PM on February 28
so, no moderator log now, moderator login future.
The question is, and must be, "how should this data be made visible to the community
posted by clavdivs at 7:43 PM on February 28
the reason why that couldn't be implemented in a day
I suspect there's not enough mod work to justify the number of paid hours and a log would make that abundantly clear.
Otherwise - yeah, shared Google Sheet would do just fine for now.
posted by Diskeater at 8:45 PM on February 28 [9 favorites]
I suspect there's not enough mod work to justify the number of paid hours and a log would make that abundantly clear.
Otherwise - yeah, shared Google Sheet would do just fine for now.
posted by Diskeater at 8:45 PM on February 28 [9 favorites]
The platonic ideal of moderation is a constant presence that takes no action.
I feel like the increased notes are filling the roles of a log for me.
posted by lucidium at 5:40 AM on March 1 [2 favorites]
I feel like the increased notes are filling the roles of a log for me.
posted by lucidium at 5:40 AM on March 1 [2 favorites]
In the site update thread, Brandon just posted this:
Moderation log for current site:
A simple moderation log (SML) is currently going through review stages. We'll let y'all know when its ready. A more fully featured mod log is planned for the new site.
No mention of a timeline for the "review stages" (love that plural - top-notch MeFi modding there). Are we talking another month? Three months? Or, you know, the two days it should take to set up and get all the mods to weigh in on a simple spreadsheet?
Given how long we've seen review stages take for things like the BIPOC minutes, I'd bet it'll be closer to April before we see any "SML". If then.
posted by catspajamas at 8:01 AM on March 1 [2 favorites]
Moderation log for current site:
A simple moderation log (SML) is currently going through review stages. We'll let y'all know when its ready. A more fully featured mod log is planned for the new site.
No mention of a timeline for the "review stages" (love that plural - top-notch MeFi modding there). Are we talking another month? Three months? Or, you know, the two days it should take to set up and get all the mods to weigh in on a simple spreadsheet?
Given how long we've seen review stages take for things like the BIPOC minutes, I'd bet it'll be closer to April before we see any "SML". If then.
posted by catspajamas at 8:01 AM on March 1 [2 favorites]
Sounds like there's confirmation that there will be a moderation log on the new site and that was my goal with this post so I'm cool to close this up. Or not, whatever people want.
posted by Diskeater at 8:05 AM on March 1 [2 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 8:05 AM on March 1 [2 favorites]
Correct, there is no timeline for finishing the review of the simple moderation log. It's going to the board, who are volunteers with full-time jobs and lives, similar to the BIPOC board, so things don't move as quickly as if MeFi was their full or even part-time dedicated job.
Leaving this open for now to see if members want to talk about what they'd like to see in the moderation log for the new site. There is not timeline on when that'll happen.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:35 AM on March 1
Leaving this open for now to see if members want to talk about what they'd like to see in the moderation log for the new site. There is not timeline on when that'll happen.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:35 AM on March 1
Can you post here what you sent (or will send) to the board to review re: the simple moderation log?
posted by Diskeater at 8:38 AM on March 1 [3 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 8:38 AM on March 1 [3 favorites]
At the very least, an announcement of when the proposed Simple Moderation Log has actually been sent to the 3 members of the board - Rhaomi, 1adam12 and Gorgik - would be the minimum we should expect here. Then we can at least know a step towards making the SML a reality has occurred.
Would expecting the board to sign off on the simple log proposal within a week of receiving it be too much to ask, Brandon, do you think?
posted by catspajamas at 8:42 AM on March 1 [2 favorites]
Would expecting the board to sign off on the simple log proposal within a week of receiving it be too much to ask, Brandon, do you think?
posted by catspajamas at 8:42 AM on March 1 [2 favorites]
A simple moderation log (SML) is currently going through review stages.
Correct, there is no timeline for finishing the review of the simple moderation log. It's going to the board
So is it fair it has not yet gone to the board? Because at a quick glance one could read that and think the current delay is due to the board. I'm sure that was unintentional though.
What are the stages of review and what stage are we currently at?
#pleaseanswer
posted by bowmaniac at 9:29 AM on March 1 [3 favorites]
Mod note: As previously stated: "No, there isn't much else to say at this point, other than it's is coming along and will be pretty simple. Thank you for your patience."
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:41 AM on March 1
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:41 AM on March 1
Masterfully vague, Brandon.
True or false: The proposal has been sent to the board.
True or false: You think saying the financials are correct should suffice as a question answered even if they're not correct.
True or false: You use the phrase "full lives" a lot and you do it as a subtle dig that people here asking questions don't have full lives.
No other typing is necessary. Just TTT or FFF or whatever combo between is correct. Thank you!
posted by donnagirl at 9:51 AM on March 1 [6 favorites]
True or false: The proposal has been sent to the board.
True or false: You think saying the financials are correct should suffice as a question answered even if they're not correct.
True or false: You use the phrase "full lives" a lot and you do it as a subtle dig that people here asking questions don't have full lives.
No other typing is necessary. Just TTT or FFF or whatever combo between is correct. Thank you!
posted by donnagirl at 9:51 AM on March 1 [6 favorites]
It's a pretty easy question to answer. Has it been sent to the board yet or not?
Because
Correct, there is no timeline for finishing the review of the simple moderation log. It's going to the board, who are volunteers with full-time jobs and lives, similar to the BIPOC board, so things don't move as quickly as if MeFi was their full or even part-time dedicated job.
sure as shit implies that it has and the delay is due to them being busy. Which is fine. But you'll perhaps forgive me for thinking that's being used as a convenient excuse when the reality is it isn't on their desks yet.
posted by bowmaniac at 9:54 AM on March 1 [5 favorites]
Because
Correct, there is no timeline for finishing the review of the simple moderation log. It's going to the board, who are volunteers with full-time jobs and lives, similar to the BIPOC board, so things don't move as quickly as if MeFi was their full or even part-time dedicated job.
sure as shit implies that it has and the delay is due to them being busy. Which is fine. But you'll perhaps forgive me for thinking that's being used as a convenient excuse when the reality is it isn't on their desks yet.
posted by bowmaniac at 9:54 AM on March 1 [5 favorites]
Hey @Rhaomi - is it cool if the mods create a Google Sheet for a simple mod log and make it read-only to the public?
posted by Diskeater at 10:21 AM on March 1
posted by Diskeater at 10:21 AM on March 1
things don't move as quickly as if MeFi was their full or even part-time dedicated job
I missed that.
I'm a government IT employee with nothing but time on my hands and anger in my heart so let's go.
posted by Diskeater at 10:27 AM on March 1 [4 favorites]
I missed that.
I'm a government IT employee with nothing but time on my hands and anger in my heart so let's go.
posted by Diskeater at 10:27 AM on March 1 [4 favorites]
Maybe a useful reminder that the code for the new site is open source, so if you are technically inclined you could dig around to see what is implemented already and how. (Not useful if you aren't so inclined, of course.)
posted by jimw at 11:41 AM on March 1 [2 favorites]
posted by jimw at 11:41 AM on March 1 [2 favorites]
I suspect there's not enough mod work to justify the number of paid hours and a log would make that abundantly clear.
Number of deletions seems like a pretty perverse metric to base whether mod work meets some time standard. Not only is it easily gameable (They want deletions, I'll give them deletions) I would hope that actually performing deletions is a relatively small portion of their day.
Cripes it would be like rating fire stations by how many fires they put out.
posted by Mitheral at 5:27 PM on March 1 [6 favorites]
Number of deletions seems like a pretty perverse metric to base whether mod work meets some time standard. Not only is it easily gameable (They want deletions, I'll give them deletions) I would hope that actually performing deletions is a relatively small portion of their day.
Cripes it would be like rating fire stations by how many fires they put out.
posted by Mitheral at 5:27 PM on March 1 [6 favorites]
It's going to the board, who are volunteers with full-time jobs and lives, similar to the BIPOC board
and probably paid less than the BIPOC board, which gets $50 per meeting.
posted by Vatnesine at 5:54 PM on March 1 [2 favorites]
and probably paid less than the BIPOC board, which gets $50 per meeting.
posted by Vatnesine at 5:54 PM on March 1 [2 favorites]
I would hope that actually performing deletions is a relatively small portion of their day.
Me too.
I'm wondering what they do with the other portion of their day.
posted by Diskeater at 5:56 PM on March 1 [1 favorite]
Me too.
I'm wondering what they do with the other portion of their day.
posted by Diskeater at 5:56 PM on March 1 [1 favorite]
I'm wondering what they do with the other portion of their day.
Brandon did record a YouTube video a month or so back that provided a "day in the life" type overview. I can't find it at the moment, but perhaps if he's reading along he might reshare it.
posted by kbanas at 6:07 PM on March 1
Brandon did record a YouTube video a month or so back that provided a "day in the life" type overview. I can't find it at the moment, but perhaps if he's reading along he might reshare it.
posted by kbanas at 6:07 PM on March 1
I'm wondering what they do with the other portion of their day.
I've been critical of the moderation here, but I have a lot of experience being a moderator on other forums. Most moderation work is passive - keeping up with what's being posted to the forum so that you can take action if you need to. In places where there's an expectation of quick moderation, that means having moderators on shifts who are checking frequently, even if nothing is posted between checks.
If you really want to know whether the hours/pay are justified you have to come up with a way to quantify how much time the moderators are actually spending on monitoring the site, not just the time spent on actual moderation actions.
Like if Brandon is checking new comments every ten minutes, that is onerous enough that it's going to interfere with him doing another job during that time. Perhaps he can do do it while stirring chili on the stove, but he's probably going to have issues focusing on anything more involved. But if Brandon is only checking every hour, or only responding to flags and that's about every three hours, then we're kind of getting into ??? territory.
Now I suspect that there is not actually a very formal list of guidelines about what is expected of the mods in terms of their active monitoring or response time, or at least not one that's enforced. There is no meaningful management even though we really seem to want to treat moderation as a real job, ideologically. I just want to push back on the idea of a moderator log as justifying (or not) their pay.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:56 AM on March 2 [9 favorites]
I've been critical of the moderation here, but I have a lot of experience being a moderator on other forums. Most moderation work is passive - keeping up with what's being posted to the forum so that you can take action if you need to. In places where there's an expectation of quick moderation, that means having moderators on shifts who are checking frequently, even if nothing is posted between checks.
If you really want to know whether the hours/pay are justified you have to come up with a way to quantify how much time the moderators are actually spending on monitoring the site, not just the time spent on actual moderation actions.
Like if Brandon is checking new comments every ten minutes, that is onerous enough that it's going to interfere with him doing another job during that time. Perhaps he can do do it while stirring chili on the stove, but he's probably going to have issues focusing on anything more involved. But if Brandon is only checking every hour, or only responding to flags and that's about every three hours, then we're kind of getting into ??? territory.
Now I suspect that there is not actually a very formal list of guidelines about what is expected of the mods in terms of their active monitoring or response time, or at least not one that's enforced. There is no meaningful management even though we really seem to want to treat moderation as a real job, ideologically. I just want to push back on the idea of a moderator log as justifying (or not) their pay.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:56 AM on March 2 [9 favorites]
“Checking new comments” is literally “refreshing a single page”, though. It’s not like they have to open every thread.
posted by bowbeacon at 12:09 PM on March 2 [2 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 12:09 PM on March 2 [2 favorites]
“Checking new comments” is literally “refreshing a single page”, though. It’s not like they have to open every thread.
And I didn't say otherwise. What I said is that the frequency with which they have to check new posts and comments is going to match how quickly they're expected to act if an issue arises. For example, if we expect them to act within ten minutes of an offensive comment being posted, then someone needs to be checking every ten minutes - and that person needs to be able to put down whatever else they're doing to respond.
If it helps, think of it as being like a receptionist. You might be spending a good portion of your day twiddling your thumbs (or learning a second language), but you still have to be available to take the call or greet the client. No one argues that receptionists shouldn't get paid for the time that they're on standby - okay, some people do, but they're shitty people.
On the other hand, if there's no expectation of swift moderation, if moderators are free to respond to issues on the site at their leisure, if issues are routinely going unaddressed for hours at a time, then given the financial situation of the site I think it's worth considering what type of job of moderation should be here and what is fair to pay for it.
If there are timestamps, a moderation log could possibly reveal delays in addressing issues that imply things about moderation workflow, but it's just not as simple as "Brandon wrote one mod comment today, why are we paying this much for a single mod comment." There's a lot of monitoring that is just not going to be logged without really invasive methods.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 1:33 PM on March 2 [11 favorites]
And I didn't say otherwise. What I said is that the frequency with which they have to check new posts and comments is going to match how quickly they're expected to act if an issue arises. For example, if we expect them to act within ten minutes of an offensive comment being posted, then someone needs to be checking every ten minutes - and that person needs to be able to put down whatever else they're doing to respond.
If it helps, think of it as being like a receptionist. You might be spending a good portion of your day twiddling your thumbs (or learning a second language), but you still have to be available to take the call or greet the client. No one argues that receptionists shouldn't get paid for the time that they're on standby - okay, some people do, but they're shitty people.
On the other hand, if there's no expectation of swift moderation, if moderators are free to respond to issues on the site at their leisure, if issues are routinely going unaddressed for hours at a time, then given the financial situation of the site I think it's worth considering what type of job of moderation should be here and what is fair to pay for it.
If there are timestamps, a moderation log could possibly reveal delays in addressing issues that imply things about moderation workflow, but it's just not as simple as "Brandon wrote one mod comment today, why are we paying this much for a single mod comment." There's a lot of monitoring that is just not going to be logged without really invasive methods.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 1:33 PM on March 2 [11 favorites]
I think the "we pay too much for moderation" folks are are doing a calculation of total dollars paid for moderation divided by total number of comments and coming up with a figure that is way out of sync with other comparable communities. It's not that anyone thinks the mods should be clocking in, responding to a flag, and then clocking back out. It's that the volume of comments here doesn't justify the total spend on moderation. This doesn't even imply any bad actors or grifters. Just an outsized spend that likely needs to be corrected for the site to continue to exist.
posted by donnagirl at 2:26 PM on March 2 [6 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 2:26 PM on March 2 [6 favorites]
I'm hard-pressed to think of other comparable communities, to be honest. If you have an example with figures and duties I'd be really interested. My experience is mostly either massive platforms with paid moderation that uses reporting/ticket systems, or on the other end, smaller communities where moderation is volunteer work and where expectations for how much time moderators are spending are more relaxed because, yeah, volunteers.
My main point is just that we need to be realistic about what moderation entails instead of thinking that a log of moderation actions will give us a whole picture. Or thinking that because monitoring activity is just "refreshing a single page" that it doesn't take time out of your day.
Or to put it another way, if you're concerned about the budget for moderation, I don't think that combing over the current moderators' activity is what we should be doing. Instead, we should be starting by deciding what we even want moderation to look like - what our expectations are and what is necessary to accomplish that fairly. But my secondary point is that we don't have that clarity because there is no meaningful leadership or organization (and I expect the site will go under before it materializes).
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 4:25 PM on March 2 [6 favorites]
My main point is just that we need to be realistic about what moderation entails instead of thinking that a log of moderation actions will give us a whole picture. Or thinking that because monitoring activity is just "refreshing a single page" that it doesn't take time out of your day.
Or to put it another way, if you're concerned about the budget for moderation, I don't think that combing over the current moderators' activity is what we should be doing. Instead, we should be starting by deciding what we even want moderation to look like - what our expectations are and what is necessary to accomplish that fairly. But my secondary point is that we don't have that clarity because there is no meaningful leadership or organization (and I expect the site will go under before it materializes).
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 4:25 PM on March 2 [6 favorites]
The mod log wasn’t conceived as a tool for assessing mods to see if they’re worth the money we pay them, it came up because people were noticing that comments were being deleted but didn’t know why. Mod logs are probably not a good tool for supervising mod behavior.
Mod behavior is more properly left to the upcoming Mod Oversight Committee, imho.
posted by Vatnesine at 4:29 PM on March 2 [9 favorites]
Mod behavior is more properly left to the upcoming Mod Oversight Committee, imho.
posted by Vatnesine at 4:29 PM on March 2 [9 favorites]
Vatnesine, that's where the discussion started but I was responding to some specific comments about the mod log and what it would reveal about how much work there actually is for the mods to do.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 4:34 PM on March 2 [4 favorites]
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 4:34 PM on March 2 [4 favorites]
Am I the only one that didn’t know that a mod comment without a box around it is an unofficial comment? I thought mods just occasionally forgot to turn that option on when they were commenting.
How would anyone know that the box had special meaning in the first place, except by happening upon maybe a specific MeTa comment that explained it maybe a decade ago or something? You certainly wouldn't know from context, with the box being used in any way at all consistently. Any official comment by a moderator should be clearly identified as such, in my view. Not just so that 'official' communications are clearly flagged as such, but because moderators are members too and should be able to contribute as their own person.
I'm exasperated but unsurprised that someone has been working on code changes to the existing site at the same time that someone has been working on a complete re-design. We're something like 24 hours away from user-testing a new site and still pushing buttons and pulling levers on a site to be archived in a (hopefully) fairly short time.
In answer to the actual question here, I think the lobst.er log is excellent and we would be well advised to copy that. Regardless of the format, it must be impossible for a comment/thread/use/whatever to be amended or deleted in any way without being entered on the log. I'm not sure how to treat account wipes in this, but surely the fact that an account was wiped could be included, without any content so as to avoid making the wipe null.
In addition to the log (but in the same spirit of transparency), any comment edited or deleted by mods should have a placemarker added with the ability to reveal what was done without having to dig through a log because you think maybe something was altered or deleted.
posted by dg at 4:56 PM on March 2 [7 favorites]
How would anyone know that the box had special meaning in the first place, except by happening upon maybe a specific MeTa comment that explained it maybe a decade ago or something? You certainly wouldn't know from context, with the box being used in any way at all consistently. Any official comment by a moderator should be clearly identified as such, in my view. Not just so that 'official' communications are clearly flagged as such, but because moderators are members too and should be able to contribute as their own person.
I'm exasperated but unsurprised that someone has been working on code changes to the existing site at the same time that someone has been working on a complete re-design. We're something like 24 hours away from user-testing a new site and still pushing buttons and pulling levers on a site to be archived in a (hopefully) fairly short time.
In answer to the actual question here, I think the lobst.er log is excellent and we would be well advised to copy that. Regardless of the format, it must be impossible for a comment/thread/use/whatever to be amended or deleted in any way without being entered on the log. I'm not sure how to treat account wipes in this, but surely the fact that an account was wiped could be included, without any content so as to avoid making the wipe null.
In addition to the log (but in the same spirit of transparency), any comment edited or deleted by mods should have a placemarker added with the ability to reveal what was done without having to dig through a log because you think maybe something was altered or deleted.
posted by dg at 4:56 PM on March 2 [7 favorites]
Vatnesine: Am I the only one that didn’t know that a mod comment without a box around it is an unofficial comment? I thought mods just occasionally forgot to turn that option on when they were commenting.
dg: How would anyone know that the box had special meaning in the first place, except by happening upon maybe a specific MeTa comment that explained it maybe a decade ago or something? You certainly wouldn't know from context, with the box being used in any way at all consistently. Any official comment by a moderator should be clearly identified as such, in my view. Not just so that 'official' communications are clearly flagged as such, but because moderators are members too and should be able to contribute as their own person.
My understanding is that the box is supposed to indicate an official comment. Even reading all the MeTas that I care about, it makes things so much easier to respond to (if needed) when you can scroll back to the mod speaking in mod box vs. speaking as a user. That this practice has become inconsistent is not a best practice, at least. I would hope the mods would take a minute to double check that they are showing which role they are speaking in.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 5:11 PM on March 2 [2 favorites]
dg: How would anyone know that the box had special meaning in the first place, except by happening upon maybe a specific MeTa comment that explained it maybe a decade ago or something? You certainly wouldn't know from context, with the box being used in any way at all consistently. Any official comment by a moderator should be clearly identified as such, in my view. Not just so that 'official' communications are clearly flagged as such, but because moderators are members too and should be able to contribute as their own person.
My understanding is that the box is supposed to indicate an official comment. Even reading all the MeTas that I care about, it makes things so much easier to respond to (if needed) when you can scroll back to the mod speaking in mod box vs. speaking as a user. That this practice has become inconsistent is not a best practice, at least. I would hope the mods would take a minute to double check that they are showing which role they are speaking in.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 5:11 PM on March 2 [2 favorites]
We're something like 24 hours away from user-testing a new site and still pushing buttons and pulling levers on a site to be archived in a (hopefully) fairly short time.
That's a lot of assumptions.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:43 PM on March 2 [1 favorite]
That's a lot of assumptions.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:43 PM on March 2 [1 favorite]
Given that the rewrite is being done by a single person, and the leadership as it currently exists does not yet have a clearly defined and functional way of making decisions quickly, it's quite possible that the new site doesn't go live for a year.
It's easy to assume that a project moving into a test phase means it's done and will be live soon, but in general it's just as likely to mean that this is when the project gets bogged down in every stakeholder's requests, every little thing that was marked "Todo: figure this out later" but turns out to be important to someone, and potentially a bunch of squabbling that makes everyone involved fed up of the sight of it, while the go-live date gets pushed back by increments as "just another thing" turns up. And the longer it goes on, the more the risk that "life stuff" means that the single developer has to down tools for whatever very understandable reason.
I suggest that if they haven't already, the board think through (a) the plan for managing the ongoing software dev process, and (b) their contingency plan for pivoting the voting to another option if the new site rollout takes longer than they anticipated.
I notice that only one issue has been raised on GitHub for the new site, and that a minor snag raised by the developer, not by anyone testing. Does that mean that the mod team didn't have time to do any testing yet? Does it mean that they already took the time to test it thoroughly and found it to be perfect? Does it mean that the bug reporting process is informal and ad hoc and therefore difficult for anyone outside the process (such as the board) to track? If it's that last thing, maybe now's a good time to switch to something a bit more structured.
posted by quacks like a duck at 11:35 PM on March 2 [5 favorites]
It's easy to assume that a project moving into a test phase means it's done and will be live soon, but in general it's just as likely to mean that this is when the project gets bogged down in every stakeholder's requests, every little thing that was marked "Todo: figure this out later" but turns out to be important to someone, and potentially a bunch of squabbling that makes everyone involved fed up of the sight of it, while the go-live date gets pushed back by increments as "just another thing" turns up. And the longer it goes on, the more the risk that "life stuff" means that the single developer has to down tools for whatever very understandable reason.
I suggest that if they haven't already, the board think through (a) the plan for managing the ongoing software dev process, and (b) their contingency plan for pivoting the voting to another option if the new site rollout takes longer than they anticipated.
I notice that only one issue has been raised on GitHub for the new site, and that a minor snag raised by the developer, not by anyone testing. Does that mean that the mod team didn't have time to do any testing yet? Does it mean that they already took the time to test it thoroughly and found it to be perfect? Does it mean that the bug reporting process is informal and ad hoc and therefore difficult for anyone outside the process (such as the board) to track? If it's that last thing, maybe now's a good time to switch to something a bit more structured.
posted by quacks like a duck at 11:35 PM on March 2 [5 favorites]
I'm exasperated but unsurprised that someone has been working on code changes to the existing site at the same time that someone has been working on a complete re-design. We're something like 24 hours away from user-testing a new site and still pushing buttons and pulling levers on a site to be archived in a (hopefully) fairly short time.As a tech lead I'm unbothered. We don't know when user testing on the new site will actually begin. If Kirkaracha had momentum on their current feature work on the new site and frimble was available but could have higher velocity by trying out a new feature on the old site, I would do the same thing.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 7:42 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
I'm exasperated but unsurprised that someone has been working on code changes to the existing site at the same time that someone has been working on a complete re-design.
Welcome to the world of migrating an entire web application from one framework to another! You cannot avoid this kind of situation. It is just impossible. The best you can do is try to limit new features during the transition, but depending on how long the transition is that can become harder and harder.
What I'm wondering is, what are the technical details for the new site, beyond being based on PHP? Will it have a NoSQL DB like Mongo or DynamoDB? How will it scale? Etc.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:59 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
Welcome to the world of migrating an entire web application from one framework to another! You cannot avoid this kind of situation. It is just impossible. The best you can do is try to limit new features during the transition, but depending on how long the transition is that can become harder and harder.
What I'm wondering is, what are the technical details for the new site, beyond being based on PHP? Will it have a NoSQL DB like Mongo or DynamoDB? How will it scale? Etc.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:59 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
It doesn't have to scale. This is a tiny website. There's no threat of ever outgrowing a single VPS.
posted by bowbeacon at 9:03 AM on March 3 [8 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 9:03 AM on March 3 [8 favorites]
I'd be super curious if someone who has experience with the current state of hosting could provide some context for what sites end up paying for and the expected scale. It's not something I've ever handled personally and while I know we always wanted to get costs down, my vague sense (from as far back as the Matt/pb days) was that there were some technical limitations on what was possible. (Possibly because of ColdFusion? I dunno, I handle people, not tech.)
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 9:23 AM on March 3
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 9:23 AM on March 3
A site I am a regular poster on, which has ~800 comments per day, recently prepaid $1200CDN for 2 years of hosting and backups.
Lobste.rs seems to pay on the order of $75 per month.
posted by bowbeacon at 9:29 AM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Lobste.rs seems to pay on the order of $75 per month.
posted by bowbeacon at 9:29 AM on March 3 [5 favorites]
Lobsters is hosted on three VPSs at DigitalOcean: a s-4vcpu-8gb for the web server, a s-4vcpu-8gb for the mariadb server, and a s-1vcpu-1gb for the IRC bot. Our domain name is registered with CRI Domains, who donated our first year of registration. DNS is provided by DNSimple and we use restic for backups to b2, both of which pushcx pays for. Lobsters is cheap to run, so we don't take donations.
There's obviously no need to pay for an IRC Bot server for metafilter, and honestly I bet lobste.rs COULD drop the DB server if they really cared about cutting costs any more.
posted by bowbeacon at 9:31 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
There's obviously no need to pay for an IRC Bot server for metafilter, and honestly I bet lobste.rs COULD drop the DB server if they really cared about cutting costs any more.
posted by bowbeacon at 9:31 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
(Looks like those big VPSes are actually $48/month. So, closer to $100 than $75/month total.)
posted by bowbeacon at 9:32 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 9:32 AM on March 3 [2 favorites]
It really depends on the setup. If everything is on a single VPS, you basically can't scale. You can get a decent VPS for a couple of hundred dollars a year. If you want to be able to scale, you probably want to go with a cloud-based solution - AWS, GCP or Azure - with a load balancer that sends requests to application servers for load distribution, all hitting a shared DB instance - preferably something like DynamoDB that doesn't have to deal with sharding and updates. That's all priced by usage, so your costs would vary depending on traffic. Not knowing MF's traffic patterns it is hard to say.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:34 AM on March 3
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:34 AM on March 3
I'm honeslty not sure what the requirements are for running Coldfusion these days, but assuming it requires a windows VM and a $700/year ColdFusion license, you're still looking at an expected cost of hosting somewhere in the $250/month range, tops.
posted by bowbeacon at 9:35 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
posted by bowbeacon at 9:35 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
MF has, roughly speaking, zero traffic. MF could increase in scale 10x and wouldn't have to do anything more than upgrading to a bigger VPS. Scaling is absolutely not a concern for this site.
posted by bowbeacon at 9:37 AM on March 3 [9 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 9:37 AM on March 3 [9 favorites]
Are we suddenly going to get an influx of users? I think not. These are some cart-before-horse questions for a site with 2000 users that's in decline.
(Sub less than 2000 for basically any number not in the 100000s, honestly.)
posted by sagc at 9:37 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]
(Sub less than 2000 for basically any number not in the 100000s, honestly.)
posted by sagc at 9:37 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]
"How to scale" is not a cart-before-horse question, it is a fundamental architecture question. But it sounds the question of "does the site's projected traffic warrant a scalable architecture" is a resounding "no." Because it is "in decline." Which makes me wonder why it is being rebuilt at all, if the consensus is that it is on death's door.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:43 AM on March 3
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:43 AM on March 3
I know it used to be true that the vast majority of site traffic was not logged in - no idea if that's *still* true. But certainly users and comments aren't a 1:1 measure of site traffic.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 9:44 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 9:44 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
There's no traffic. Like, none. In terms of the internet, and what computers can do, there is a negligible amount of traffic here.
posted by bowbeacon at 9:48 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 9:48 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
SEMRush pegs MetaFilter at 712,458/month over the last 6 months with 87% of that being US traffic.
Pages/Visits
2.42
↓
Avg. Visit Duration
11:20
↑
Bounce rate
68.50%
↑
posted by warriorqueen at 9:52 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
Pages/Visits
2.42
↓
Avg. Visit Duration
11:20
↑
Bounce rate
68.50%
↑
posted by warriorqueen at 9:52 AM on March 3 [3 favorites]
By comparison, lobster.rs on SEMRush looks like 6,552/month - not sure if they have other domains that impacts that.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:57 AM on March 3
posted by warriorqueen at 9:57 AM on March 3
And sorry for the triple but I should note - that's estimated organic search traffic. Not all traffic is necessarily represented.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:58 AM on March 3
posted by warriorqueen at 9:58 AM on March 3
Ok, yeah, that's where my context breaks down - I have no idea what the difference in cost would be with two orders of magnitude difference in traffic.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 10:42 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 10:42 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
we really should be running more ads for those 700 000 people who don't log in.
posted by sagc at 10:46 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
posted by sagc at 10:46 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
Will the new site be using a REST API, or will it still be all form submissions over AJAX?
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:49 AM on March 3
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:49 AM on March 3
grumpybear, I *think* a lot of this can be answered by reading through the code on GitHub. Don't have the link handy but it exists.
posted by sagc at 10:56 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
posted by sagc at 10:56 AM on March 3 [1 favorite]
Those are page views not ppl but it’s definitely one way to go. :)
posted by warriorqueen at 10:59 AM on March 3
posted by warriorqueen at 10:59 AM on March 3
I had no idea it was on Github! Looking now.
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:03 AM on March 3
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:03 AM on March 3
It is using a plain old relational database, grumpybear69, because NoSQL is mostly fucking terrible for CMS-type applications (and also terrible at everything else, but i will leave it at that). I think it's specced for MySQL right now, but Laravel handles Postgres just fine too. There is absolutely zero chance that MetaFilter is ever looking at the volume you'd need to see to start talking about sharding, and the old bullshit about how RDBMSes don't scale is just that, bullshit.
posted by adrienneleigh at 11:54 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 11:54 AM on March 3 [4 favorites]
I have no idea what the difference in cost would be with two orders of magnitude difference in traffic.
There's not really any difference in cost, because all of these sites have zero traffic, in terms of "what a modern server can handle". Metafilter, Lobste.rs, etc, they're all tiny.
posted by bowbeacon at 12:01 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
There's not really any difference in cost, because all of these sites have zero traffic, in terms of "what a modern server can handle". Metafilter, Lobste.rs, etc, they're all tiny.
posted by bowbeacon at 12:01 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
I've clearly stepped on a mine here, I will see myself out.
posted by grumpybear69 at 12:22 PM on March 3
posted by grumpybear69 at 12:22 PM on March 3
But it sounds the question of "does the site's projected traffic warrant a scalable architecture" is a resounding "no." Because it is "in decline." Which makes me wonder why it is being rebuilt at all, if the consensus is that it is on death's door.
This is totally the wrong way to look at it. It's not a question of the site being in decline or not. We could recover to the peak amount of usage and traffic that MeFi has ever had, and then increase by another 10x, and probably still not be at the point where multiple servers are necessary.
It's extremely straightforward to design a site that can be "scaled up" by just getting more powerful hardware. Eventually, if the demands keep increasing, you reach the limits of that approach and you have to "scale out" instead. That's the point where you have to start thinking about things like distributed databases, which come with great additional complexity. If we ever do get to the point where we have to worry about that, it will be many years from now and we will have plenty of time to worry about it then.
Stack Overflow handles something like 1000x as much traffic as MeFi, using two ordinary SQL database servers (one active and one hot spare).
posted by teraflop at 12:58 PM on March 3 [14 favorites]
This is totally the wrong way to look at it. It's not a question of the site being in decline or not. We could recover to the peak amount of usage and traffic that MeFi has ever had, and then increase by another 10x, and probably still not be at the point where multiple servers are necessary.
It's extremely straightforward to design a site that can be "scaled up" by just getting more powerful hardware. Eventually, if the demands keep increasing, you reach the limits of that approach and you have to "scale out" instead. That's the point where you have to start thinking about things like distributed databases, which come with great additional complexity. If we ever do get to the point where we have to worry about that, it will be many years from now and we will have plenty of time to worry about it then.
Stack Overflow handles something like 1000x as much traffic as MeFi, using two ordinary SQL database servers (one active and one hot spare).
posted by teraflop at 12:58 PM on March 3 [14 favorites]
1000x feels like a low estimate, frankly.
posted by bowbeacon at 1:28 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 1:28 PM on March 3 [3 favorites]
StackOverflow is moving to the cloud. And here's what they were using in 2016. "Two ordinary SQL servers, one hot, one spare" is really underselling their infrastructure.
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:52 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:52 PM on March 3 [2 favorites]
I'm wondering what they do with the other portion of their day.
Reading through all the crap we write? We produce a lot of crap to sift through.
posted by Jacqueline at 9:01 PM on March 4
Reading through all the crap we write? We produce a lot of crap to sift through.
posted by Jacqueline at 9:01 PM on March 4
In a lot of scenarios where mods have messed up recently, it really, really feels like they're not reading a lot of the site.
posted by sagc at 9:19 PM on March 4 [7 favorites]
posted by sagc at 9:19 PM on March 4 [7 favorites]
Yeah, it's been pretty obvious to me for a long time that they do not generally read threads; they respond to flags in a way that makes it pretty obvious that they're not getting the broader context.
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:43 PM on March 4 [8 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:43 PM on March 4 [8 favorites]
Mod note: A bare bones moderation log has been released, here's the thread announcing and discussing it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:22 PM on March 21
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:22 PM on March 21
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by loup (staff) at 8:00 AM on February 28 [3 favorites]